1010011010

Well, first you'd need to identify groups of designed objects.
One group would be objects designed for a common task.
Another group would be objects designed by a common designer.
From that you may develop of rigorous characterization of what gives an object the appearance of being designed.
Then you would look for those characteristics in living things.

[Steps out of character]
No one has done this, of course, because in all probability no rigorous characterization of design would arise. On the off chance that one could be formulated, though, I'd wager it's probable that no evidence of design would be detected in living things.

As it stands, ID is not a science and is not falsifiable. This is not because ID is inherently unscientific, but merely because no one has been bothered to do the legwork to establish a standard of evidence. This dismissive attitude of ID as the creationists' newest rhetoric is dangerous.[/character]

Pithy.Watchmakers do give birth to more watches, though. And watchbuyers can select those watches that most fit their needs and desires. If a watchmaker comes up with a new design that increases the usefulness or desireability of a timepiece, those watches will sell, and so the representation of that design of watch will increase in the population.

Thus we see in the design of watches (and other designed objects) an accumulation of new and interesting features over times... because the design process under market pressure is itself somewhat evolutionary in nature.

We don't, we're pointing out that the patterns we see in nature (genetic similarities, et al.) are similar to those patterns we may observe in certain lineages of designed objects. Thus is is reasonable to assume that these patterns known to arrise in designed objects, when found in living things, would also indicate that living things are designed.

Or so you claim, anyway. I've yet to see how you distinguish between an evolutionary design process and natural selection.

Paley's was essentially an argument from ignorance. What Paley failed to realize is, of course, that watches, though designed and created, do evolve.

Certainly there is the occassional cognitive leap in technology. But surely you're not claiming that the genetic and/or fossil record is complete and without shortcomings?

Of course, if watches could have baby watches, and had been having baby watches for a thousand million years, you'd merely assert that the watches evolved... despite the fact that they were designed.

I don't, really. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make things interesting.

Not yet. There potentially could be, if, as noted above, someone did the legwork to establish a standard of evidence for design.

Why do we have computer viruses? Why do we have unnecessary includes? Why do we have buffer overruns?

Unless you're suddenly asserting that automobiles evolve (and not in the design process method outlined above) I think the observable fact that there are multiple car makers demonstrates you don't quite follow the logic.

And in all probability you would be able to identify an unbadged Honda, Ford, etc. etc. from model year to model year... Furthermore, you'd probably be able to identify that the same person that desined the VW Passat designed the new Ford 500... or the same person that designed the 94-98 Honda Accord line also worked on cars for Volvo and BMW. But still be able to identify these cars as Hondas, VWs, Volvos, or Fords... based on other design clues.

Unless those observations serve a design hypothesis equally as well or better. As it stands, we have no way of knowing if they do or not.

True. ID is not currently science. It is not inherently unscientific, though... which is pretty much the core message I'm trying to get across.

I believe it's been sketched out in this post, above.

I'm going to lapse completely out of character for a moment.
I'm not very impressed with the way you've been handling this. You remind me of a scholastic. You have respect for modern science, but knowledge is preferrable to respect. You jump to repeat what you've read from respected sources at the expense of actually paying attention to the argument being made by your opponent. Behe, Dembski, and the whole irreducible complexity and complex specific information snowjob are bankrupt, sure... but it doesn't make you (or me, when I'm not clowning at being Evil) look good to demolish those guys when you are the one that brings them up in the conversation. It looks like misdirection and grandstanding. Those are the tactics of the Creationists. Don't Do It. Stick to the conversation at hand, and constrain yourself to what's actually being said by your opponent. If it looks liek they're dancing the partyline or reciting some but of boilerplate, ask first, then tear them apart. Otherwise they can just ask you what the fuck you're talking about and you've spent your rhetoric on a straw man.
I now return you to your regulaly scheduled program.

How long did it take us to go from the beginning of the industrial revolution to our current clumsy attempts at genetic engineering? Imagine where a culture even of our skill wold be after 5 billion years. Why is genetic engineering a disallowed design process for a sufficiently advanced species?

Is not, yes. Cannot be, no.

Well, I'm certainly not going to be the one to put in the elbow grease to figure out if intelligent design has any merit, neither are you, in all probability.

Careful where you stand. How do we know humans and mushrooms and coelacanths and blue spruces have a common ancestor? "'poof' It's evolution!"

So the Fundies are right in claiming there's some sort of significance in many scientists being Atheists? They're just trying to promote their godless agenda?

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions